Fundamentals of the benchmarking methods used to design the Biennial Review Database

Transcription

1 Experts training on the Biennial Review Database and on the content of the Biennial Report on Malabo Declaration Fundamentals of the benchmarking methods used to design the Biennial Review Database Dakar, 26 th to 28 th July, 2017 Slide 1 Anselme Vodounhessi & Maurice Lorka

2 Content Part I: Scorecard and Benchmarking Part II: Scoring methods Part III: Key decisions on BR scorecard from various consultations Slide 2

3 Part I: Scorecard and Benchmarking Slide 3

4 The Scorecard The use of Scorecard is emerging as important tool that policy makers can use: - to improve sector performance; - to support institutional reform; - to enhance accountability ; and - to improve services, if it is made use of As anticipated by AU leaders, the Scorecard remains critical to improve the quality of agricultural sector services, and can motivate increased performances of member states to deliver on targets of Malabo declaration, while revitalizing the mutual accountability and mutual support platforms. Slide 4

5 Slide 5

6 ? Slide 6

7 Slide 7

8 Slide 8

9 Slide 9

10 Slide 10

11 Slide 11

12 Slide 12

13 Slide 13

14 Classifications Simple Indicators table Performance map Dashboard Traffic light Scorecard = table of performance Index Other innovative forms (mix of ) Slide 14

15 Slide 15

16 Slide 16

17 Slide 17

18 Progress status Slide 18

19 Scorecard Subjects No. Item Mark/20 Weight 1 Maths Physics Biology 13 5 School Report or Report Card of Mr Tall 4 Languages Politics History Singing Dance 15 1 Average Mark: 15.6 Benchmark 12.0 Decision: Qualified Slide 19

20 Scorecard No matter how many millions of indicators you have. I can still aggregate! I can still give a score! A Benchmarking Engineer Slide 20

21 Scorecard The question is how to tell the real story behind the score Slide 21

22 Slide 22

23 Slide 23

24 Slide 24

25 Benchmark (standard definition) a point of reference from which measurements may be made something that serves as a standard in our particular case, it is where we want a country to be at a certain time Slide 25

26 What is Benchmarking? A continuous process of comparing one s own performances against the ones of others (eg. countries) in order to achieve continuous improvement. A practice in which a country is humble enough to admit that another country is better at something, and being wise enough to learn how to match and even surpass the best Slide 26

27 Benchmarking Performance 2. Benchmarking helps to set strategy and learn new approaches Best- in-class performance 4. Benchmarking maintains the stimulation for continuous improvement Gap Current performance 1. Benchmarking identifies and calibrates gap 3. Benchmarking helps to measure success in closing the gap Source: Coopers & Lybrand TIME Slide 27

28 Why Benchmarking? It allows (countries) to measure their performance and search for best practices in order to close performance gaps It creates incentive to challenge the status quo and to set high standards of performance at national level to better deliver on continental goals It provides an external perspective to the setting of improvement goals for the country It provides a reference point for performance measurement It reinforces the culture of continuous improvement It provides a sense of urgency. Slide 28

29 Two common forms of benchmarking Metric benchmarking Development of performance indicators to measure current performance and compare to the best in class. Process benchmarking Identifying other countries that have achieved exemplary performances to find best practices. Learning, customising and internalizing those practices to improve performance. Metric and process benchmarking complement each other... Slide 29

30 Common Barriers Insufficient data: Benchmarking is data intensive exercise; Quality of the data needed and how to cross check ; Information sharing or using other country s information ; Nouveauté of the Benchmarking: country not used to a format of PEB that identifies Best in Class and Underachievers ; Culture of underachievement: Ideally, pointing the finger at the poor performance should be a wake up call for a country to do better ; Collaboration during the benchmarking exercise: readiness to cooperate and share best practices ; Difficulty in collecting and maintaining records related to performance indicators ; Power and interest game. Slide 30

31 Slide 31

32 Common Barriers Slide 32

33 Common Barriers Slide 33

34 Example of Benchmarking initiatives PEB is well promoted in the water sector, through many Benchmarking Initiatives. Slide 34

35 Figures matter a lot in Benchmarking Slide 35

36 IDEE: Benchmarking in agriculture sector, GOOD? It will be very interesting to promote Benchmarking in Agricultural sector, especially in the context of promoting the use of scorecard for Malabo Declaration. African Agriculture Transformation Benchmarking Project? To cover the comprehensive list of agricultural sector indicators. beyond indicators of Malabo declaration, that could capture the true health of Agriculture sector. To institutionalize Benchmarking exercise amongst African States, and even with other countries out of Africa, to allow MS to adopt suitable governance and management approaches and technologies, to better perform in Agricultural sector. Slide 36

37 Scorecard and Benchmarking The Scorecard (tool for metric benchmarking) is based on Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking (PEB) principles. Well know principles based on the Easy Theory but the knowledge is not enough developed, even under international Benchmarking initiatives. Accuracy, rightness and fairness in telling the performance story once the Performance Indicator is calculated. A Score or PI is not only about the indicator it is a function of indicator and the target and should reflect the progess Slide 37

38 Scoring approach many approaches loose the theory behind the scorecard because the performance evaluation and benchmarking (PEB) work which comes after an indicator is calculated, is given less attention in most of the cases. Slide 38

39 Scoring approach In most cases the score is giving by providing a table of values taken by the indicators,... while ignoring the progress made towards the target set of the indicators: the actual performance Index! Unless you are presenting a Status Report, Performance Index need to be computed to report progress in a Progress Report. Slide 39

40 Indicator and PI Slide 40

41 Boundary between Indicator and PI Example of Target to be monitored in a scorecard system: Increase water productivity from rain-fed agriculture and Irrigation by 30%, from 2000 to Slide 41

42 Agricultural GDP A A ( B C) Agri. Water Withdrawal B Water Return to Environment C 2000 (e) Indicator Profiling Works (TG) Water Productivity Wp 2000 Wp Wp 2013 Wp (f) Performance indicator Rate of Increase R i Wp The Easy Theory Baseline Yr 2000 Milestone 2015 Performance Evaluation & Benchmarking Works (TN) PI is better and fair for evaluating performance Agricultural GDP A A ( B C) Agri. Water Withdrawal B Water Return to Environment C 2013 (e) Water Productivity Wp 2013 RWp i MaxMin10,10, 0 0 PI 10 TARGET Ʈ = 30% (g) Performance Index PI Benchmark ( ) On Track??? (d) Slide 42

43 Some illustrations Why all these are important? Slide 43

44 Some illustrations Slide 44

45 MDG 7c: Reduce by 50% from 1990 to 2015, the proportion of the population without improved drinking water source, and the proportion without improved sanitation facility. Population with access to improved facility hbts Population with out access to improved facility hbts % of Pop. with access to improved facility 75% % of Pop. with out access to improved facility 25% Not TELING how much the country has reduced the Slide 45 population without access

46 MDG 7c: Reduce by 50% from 1990 to 2015, the proportion of the population without improved drinking water source, and the proportion without improved sanitation facility. Argument T T % i i = MDGs INDICATOR Slide 46

47 Progress on the Biennial... Slide 47

48 Slide 48

49 Indicator and Target There is no INDICATOR without a TARGET... Slide 49

50 Similar mistake being made under SDG!!! 50% Slide 50

51 The right Indicator Baseline Target Year: Y r0 = 2015 Value: Wwtr 0 = 30% Year: Y rt = 2030 Value: Wwtr T = 80% Wwtr = waste water treated 1 - Wwtr 0 = 70% Untreated waste water Half 1 - Wwtr T = 35% Wwtr T = 65% You can t tell: - By how much is it good - What are we comparing with the SDG target of 50% - What is actually the right indicator? Wwtr T = 80% > 65% GOOD Slide 51

52 The right Indicator Baseline Target Year: Y r0 = 2015 Value: Wwtr 0 = 30% Wwtr 0 = 30% to Wwtr T = 80% 71% ON TRACK Year: Y rt = 2030 Value: Wwtr T = 80% Wwtr 0 = 82% to Wwtr T = 90% 44% Wwtr = waste water treated NOT ON TRACK 1 - Wwtr 0 = 70% Untreated waste water Half 1 - Wwtr T = 35% Wwtr T = 65% Answer: Right Indicator: Rate of reduction of the proportion of untreated wastewater. Can be expressed by: i Wwtr i Wwtr 100 Wwtr 0 0 Wwtr T = 80% > 65% 50% GOOD from the known value of Wwtr Slide 52

53 Agricultural GDP A A ( B C) Agri. Water Withdrawal B Water Return to Environment C 2000 (e) Indicator Profiling Works (TG) Water Productivity Wp 2000 Wp Wp 2013 Wp (f) Performance indicator Rate of Increase R i Wp The Easy Theory Baseline Yr 2000 Milestone 2015 Performance Evaluation & Benchmarking Works (TN) DECISIONS!!! Agricultural GDP A A ( B C) Agri. Water Withdrawal B Water Return to Environment C 2013 (e) Water Productivity Wp 2013 RWp i MaxMin10,10, 0 0 PI 10 TARGET Ʈ = 30% (g) Performance Index PI Benchmark ( ) On Track??? (d) Slide 53

54 PEB The Scorecard is based on Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking (PEB) principles. Well know principles based on the Easy Theory but the knowledge is not enough developed, even under existing Benchmarking initiatives. Understanding the Easy Theory will help to make necessary Decisions on how the Scorecard should be designed. Decision on Weights Decision on I-Score Decision on the scale Decision on the Format of the Scorecard Etc Slide 54

55 Part II: Scoring methods How to score? Slide 55

56 Simple Scoring case Master Student work on Organizational Capacity Assessment Slide 56

57 Simple Scoring case, with the 7-27 menu 1. GOVERNANCE 1. Board 2. Mission / Goals 3. Leadership 2. MANAGEMENT 4. Organization Structure 5. Planning 6. Monitoring and Evaluation 7. Program Development 3. HR DEVELOPMENT 8. Personnel Management 9. Work Environment 10. Staff Development 11. Salary Benefits and Performance Slide 57

58 Simple Scoring case, with the 7-27 menu 4. FINANCIAL RESOURCES 12. Accounting and Financial Management Systems 13. Financial Control and Budgeting 5. SERVICES DELIVERY 14. Sectorial Expertise 15. Community Participation 16. Impacts Assessment 6. EXTERNAL RELATIONS 17. Community partners 18. Other Development Organization 19. Donors 20. Other local Organizations Slide 58

59 Simple Scoring case, with the 7-27 menu 7. ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY 21. Commitment 22. Strategic thinking 23. Marketing function 24. Efficiency of Operation 25. Reliance on Donor support 26. Alternatives to Donors Financing 27. Income Generating entreprise existence and operation. Slide 59

60 Simple Scoring case Slide 60

61 The Scoring approach in targets monitoring Need more cautious in getting a right and fair score on how the target shall be achieved Slide 61

62 Slide 62

63 Slide 63

64 The Easy Theory Slide 64

65 Performance Structure Performance Theme Performance Category Performance Indicators No. Item T-score T-weight No. Item C-score C-weight No. Item I-score I-weight Theme 3 Category 3.2 Indicators 3.2i Slide 65

66 The Easy Theory Slide 66

67 The Easy Theory Slide 67

68 The Easy Theory Need decision on the weights: I-weight, C-weight and T-weigh Slide 68

69 How does it work? How to score? Slide 69

70 How does it work? Subjects No. Item Mark/20 1 Maths 19 2 Physics 19 3 Biology 13 4 Languages 12 5 Politics 12 6 History 13 7 Music 6 8 Dance 15 AvM Mark i weight ) Average Mark: 15.6 ( i Weight % 24% 20% 4% 8% 12% 4% 4% Benchmark 12.0 Decision: Qualified Slide 70

71 How does it work? 1 st level Aggregation for decision making Subject Category Subjects No. Item Mark/20 Weight No. Item Mark/20 Weight S Science % 1 Maths 19 35% 24% Av A Arts % 7 Music % Average Mark: Benchmark Decision: i. M i i ( C. mark C. weight ) 2 Physics 19 35% 3 Biology 13 29% 4 Languages 12 17% 5 Politics 12 33% 6 History 13 50% 7 Singing 6 50% 8 Dance 15 50% 15.6 C mark ij 12.0 Qualified. i ij ij ( mark weight ) Slide 71 24% 20% 4% 8% 12% 4% 4%

72 I-score, P-score, T-score, & O-score: How does it work? Performance Theme Performance Category Performance Indicators Performance Structure No. Item T-score T-weight No. Item C-score C-weight No. Item I-score I-weight Theme i Category ij Indicators ijk O-Score I. score ijk f ( TARGET / Milestone) C score ( I. score I. weight ). ij ijk ijk T. scorei ij ij ( C. score C. weight ) Slide 72 O score ( T. score T. weight ). i i

73 I-score, P-score, T-score, & O-score: How does it work? Performance Theme Performance Category Performance Indicators No. Item T-score T-weight No. Item C-score C-weight No. Item I-score I-weight T. scorei ij ij ( C. score C. weight ) C score. ij ijk ijk ( I. score I. weight ) I. score f ( t arget / benchmark) ijk O-Score O score ( T. score T. weight ). i i Weights? I-Score ijk? Slide 73

74 The Weights The Weighting Principle The weighting: It is a Decision on how important is an Performance Indicator, or Performance Category, or Performance Theme, etc as compared to the others at the same level of aggregation, in having higher impact to achieving the desired overall objective. Decision making approaches: The relative weighting approach The absolute weighting approach Slide 74

75 The Weights The Weighting Principle The relative weighting N decision making points where N = number of aggregation levels. Slide 75

76 The Weights The Weighting Principle The relative weighting - Under an aggregation i, weight ij 100% j - An Equi-weight is when weight ; & ijk Id ij weightij Idi weight i Id Subject Category Subjects No. Item Mark/20 Weight No. Item Mark/20 Weight S Science % 1 Maths 19 35% 2 Physics 19 35% 3 Biology 13 29% A Arts % 4 Languages 12 17% 5 Politics 12 33% 6 History 13 50% 7 Music % 7 Singing 6 50% 8 Dance 15 50% Average Mark: 15.6 Benchmark 12.0 Slide 76 Decision: Qualified

77 The Weights The Weighting Principle The absolute weighting Only one decision making the last aggregation level. T. weight C. weight i ij C. weight I. weight ij ijk Slide 77

78 The Weights The Weighting Principle The absolute weighting ijk ij I. weight ijk 100% C. weight ij 100% T. weight i 100% i An Equi-weight is when weight ijk Id Subject Category Subjects No. Item Mark/20 Weight No. Item Mark/20 Weight S Science 68% 1 Maths 24% 2 Physics 24% 3 Biology 20% A Arts 24% 4 Languages 4% 5 Politics 8% 6 History 12% 7 Music 8% 7 Singing 4% 8 Dance 4% Average Mark: Benchmark Decision: Slide 78

79 The Weights The Weighting Principle Particularity for an Equi-weight System I. score f ( TARGET / Milestone) ijk C. score Average I. ij score ijk T. scorei Average C. score ij O. score Average T. score i Slide 79

80 The I-score It is the score that reflects immediately how much a target is achieved based on the observed value of the indicator. The I-score can have or not have a range/scale. Example: etc No range and considered as an absolute value. Slide 80

81 Slide 81

82 The I-score Estimate a I-score? Double (100% increase) the current agricultural labor productivity levels by the from 2015 to AgWt 100 AgW t AgW AgW 0 0 Baseline Target Year: Y r0 = 2015 Value: τ Agw0 = 0 Year: Y r = 2019 Value: τ Agw? Year: Y rt = 2025 Value: τ AgWT = 100% 1)- Which value of τ AgW, a country is supposed to have be on track? 2)- Which Score (between 0 10), for : τ AgW = 0% ; 25% ; 40% ; 100%, 700% ; -1% ; -700%? Slide 82

83 The I-score How to estimate a Score? 2019 Baseline Target Year: Y r0 = 2015 Value: τ Agw0 = 0 Year: Y r = 2019 Value: τ Agw? Year: Y rt = 2025 Value: τ AgWT = 100% ( Yr Yr 0) 1)- It is 40% ( Y Y ) rt r 0 = The 2019 milestone Slide 83

84 Indicators Milestone Bsl ( Y ( Y r T Y Y Bsl Bsl ) ) Bsl Target, Ʈ V 2 Milestone, V 1 Basl. value Bsl Performance line Slope of the Performance line, tan On Track Not on Track Bsl Bsl ( Y r Y Bsl ) ( Y T Y Bsl ) Baseline Year Y Bsl Y r Target Year Y T Years Slide 84

85 The I-score How to estimate a Score? 2019 Baseline Target Year: Y r0 = 2015 Value: τ Agw0 = 0 Year: Y r = 2019 Value: τ Agw? Year: Y rt = 2025 Value: τ AgWT = 100% ( Yr Yr 0) 1)- It is 40% ( Y Y ) rt r 0 = The 2019 milestone 2)- Which Score (between 0 10), for : IRwat = 25% ; 40% ; 100% ; 700% ; -1% ; -700% Score =?? ; 0 ; 0 Need Decision Slide 85

86 The I-score Notion of Relative Scoring 25% τagw 0% 40% decision!!! I-Score? 0 10 I I. score 40 % score25 25% 40%. % 6.25 Using the Milestone as Maximum Score 10 I score Max( Min( AgW Milestone. AgW,0)) Slide 86

87 The I-score Notion of Absolute Scoring (ADVISED) τagw 0% 100% decision!!! I-Score I I 0?? score25 25% 100%. % 25% 40% 10 score40 40% 100%. % = 2019 Benchmark Using the Target as Maximum Score I. score Agw 10 Max( Min( TARGET Agw,0)) Slide 87

88 Indicators The I-Score measures the effort towards the target Score 1 = x Scale Benchmark = x Scale Target, Ʈ V 2 Milestone, V 1 Basl. value Bsl Baseline Year Y Bsl Y r Target Year Y T Years Slide 88

89 The Benchmark Slide 89

90 The Benchmark Slide 90

91 The BR 2016 Benchmark table 2017 Country Scorecard for implementing Malabo Declaration Country Name Benchmark Theme (T) Performance Category (C) Performance No. Item T-score T-progress No. Item C-score C-Progress PC 1.1 National CAADP Process 3.33 NOTE 1: The I-score with range does not value: 1 2 Re-commitment to CAADP Process 3.33 Investment Finance in Agriculture 6.67 PC 1.2 PC 1.3 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture PC 2.2 PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. - - silent silent PC 2.4 Access to finance those who have overachieved 3 Ending Hunger 3.71 PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies 5.53 PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity 1.00 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss % (the target) and 700% score 10 - those who have negative achievements ( - 700% and 0% score 0 ) Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture Intra-African Trade in Agriculture Commodities Resilience to Climate Variability 6.00 Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results PC 3.4 Social Protection PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.00 PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction 3.25 PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains 1.00 PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture 1.00 PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business 3.00 PC 5.1 PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.00 PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.00 PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.33 PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process Overall Score 3.9 Overall progress On Slide track 91

92 The BR 2016 Benchmark table 2017 Country Scorecard for implementing Malabo Declaration Country Name Benchmark Theme (T) Performance Category (C) Performance No. Item T-score T-progress No. Item C-score PC 1.1 National CAADP Process 3.33 C-Progress NOTE 2: 1 Re-commitment to CAADP Process 3.33 PC 1.2 PC 1.3 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture Investment Finance in Agriculture 6.67 PC 2.2 PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. - - silent silent PC 2.4 Access to finance 3.33 On the Scorecard, you decide what you want to communicate! 3 Ending Hunger Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture 2.06 PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies 5.53 PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity 1.00 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.00 PC 3.4 Social Protection PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.00 PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction 3.25 PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains 1.00 PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture 1.00 PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business Intra-African Trade in Agriculture Commodities 1.00 PC 5.1 PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions Resilience to Climate Variability 6.00 PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.00 PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results 4.78 PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.00 PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.33 PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process Overall Score 3.9 Overall progress On Slide track 92

93 The BR 2016 Benchmark table NOTE 2: On the Scorecard, you decide what you want to communicate! Slide 93

94 Part III: Key decisions on the BR, from various consultations Slide 94

95 Key Decisions under various consultations Slide 95

96 Biennial Review Performance Structure 7 Performances Themes 23 Performances Categories 43 Performances Indicators Slide 96

97 Baseline and Target Years of BR indicators For Process indicators For Results indicators Slide 97

98 Weighting systems for the BR Scorecard Slide 98

99 Weighting systems for the BR Scorecard: Equiweights Slide 99

100 Weighting systems for the BR Scorecard Slide 100

101 Scale of the BR Scorecard 2017 Country Scorecard for implementing Malabo Declaration Country Name Benchmark Theme (T) Performance Category (C) Performance No. Item T-score T-progress No. Item C-score PC 1.1 National CAADP Process 3.33 C-Progress 1 Re-commitment to CAADP Process 3.33 PC 1.2 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance 3.33 PC 1.3 CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support 3.33 PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture Investment Finance in Agriculture 6.67 PC 2.2 PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. - - silent silent SCALE PC 2.4 Access to finance 3.33 PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies 5.53 PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity Ending Hunger 3.71 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.00 PC 3.4 Social Protection PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.00 PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture 2.06 PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains 1.00 PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture 1.00 PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business Intra-African Trade in Agriculture Commodities 1.00 PC 5.1 PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions Resilience to Climate Variability 6.00 PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.00 PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results 4.78 PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.00 PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.33 PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process Overall Score 3.9 Overall progress Slide 101

102 2017 Country Scorecard for implementing Malabo Declaration Country Name Benchmark Theme (T) Performance Category (C) Performance No. Item T-score T-progress No. Item C-score PC 1.1 National CAADP Process 3.33 C-Progress 1 Re-commitment to CAADP Process 3.33 PC 1.2 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance 3.33 PC 1.3 CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support 3.33 PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture Structure of the Scorecard 2 Investment Finance in Agriculture Ending Hunger 3.71 PC 2.2 PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. PC 2.4 Access to finance 3.33 PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity 1.00 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.00 PC 3.4 Social Protection silent silent PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.00 PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture 2.06 PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains 1.00 PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture 1.00 PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business Intra-African Trade in Agriculture Commodities 1.00 PC 5.1 PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions Resilience to Climate Variability 6.00 PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.00 PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results 4.78 PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.00 PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.33 PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process Overall Score 3.9 Overall progress Slide 102

103 Structure of the Scorecard 2017 Country Scorecard for implementing Malabo Declaration Country Name Benchmark Theme (T) Performance Category (C) Performance No. Item T-score T-progress No. Item C-score C-Progress PC 1.1 National CAADP Process Re-commitment to CAADP Process 3.33 PC 1.2 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance 3.33 PC 1.3 CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support 3.33 PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture Investment Finance in Agriculture 6.67 PC 2.2 PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agro-Ind. - - silent silent PC 2.4 Access to finance 3.33 PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies Ending Hunger 3.71 PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity 1.00 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.00 PC 3.4 Social Protection Slide 103

104 Structure of the Scorecard PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity Ending Hunger 3.71 PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.00 PC 3.4 Social Protection PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.00 PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture 2.06 PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains 1.00 PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture 1.00 PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business Intra-African Trade in Agriculture Commodities 1.00 PC 5.1 PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions Resilience to Climate Variability 6.00 PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.00 PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results 4.78 PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.00 PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.33 PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process Overall Score 3.9 Overall progress Slide 104

105 Asante! Thanks! Merci! Slide 105